Does Creation make the Gospel a laughing stock?

Published: 2 April 2011(GMT+10)

Illustration by Caleb Salisbury

We received an overwhelmingly positive response to our exchange with the compromising
chaplain, Rodney M. (see
part 1 and
part 2). But Robert S. from Australia criticized our responses. His
message is printed in its entirety followed by a response by
Gary Bates and Lita Cosner.

I agree with the Chaplain. Creationists are unnecessarily destabilizing the faith
of young Christians, unjustifiably attacking Science and the many Christian Scientists
who think differently from them, making the Gospel, the Christian Faith and the
Church a laughing stock in schools and universities and alienating students genuinely
interested in the Christian Faith. I thank the Chaplain for his courage and I condemn
your unchristian maligning of his beliefs.

Dear Robert,

With all due respect, we don’t see how you could hold that view after reading
the overwhelmingly supportive comments by Christians that have been published below
both responses to Rev. M,. At the time of writing, yours is the only negative
response. All of the aforementioned respondents were saying that they were excited
when they found out that the Bible can actually be trusted from the first verse.
Although you claim our view is a stumbling block, this seems to be a self-borne
perception that is not grounded with much experience if the testimonies are anything
to go by. Many commented how creation teaching actually opened their eyes to the
truth of the Gospel and led to them becoming Christians.

People reject Christ for all sorts of reasons and excuse, and the majority of times
it is based upon ignorance about what the Bible actually says or the true nature
of God due to man’s sinful heart condition and his desire to reject God.

If you relied upon the experience of some who said they rejected the Gospel because
of a biblical ‘young-Earth’ stance, it does not invalidate the truth
of Genesis or make it less trustworthy. People reject Christ for all sorts of reasons
and excuse, and the majority of times it is based upon ignorance about what the
Bible actually says or the true nature of God due to man’s sinful heart condition
and his desire to reject God. We’re sure you’ve had conversations with
people who raise straw man arguments against God, or who make claims about Christianity
that are plainly not true as a reason for not believing.

For example, there is ample historical evidence that Jesus was a real person who
lived and died and performed miracles. Reliable historical witnesses even testify
to the Resurrection. Yet the ‘world’s’ science shows that miracles
don’t happen and men don’t rise from the dead. Similarly the world’s
science says we are all evolved apes and the universe is 14 billion years old, so
who is right? This problem comes about because we don’t see the crucial difference
between historical knowledge and scientific knowledge. As N.T. Wright says:

“There are, after all, different types of knowing. Science studies the repeatable;
history studies the unrepeatable. Caesar only crossed the Rubicon once, and if he’d
crossed it again it would have meant something different the second time. There
was, and could be, only one first landing on the moon. The fall of the second Jerusalem
Temple took place in AD 70 and never happened again.
Historians don’t see this as a problem and are usually not shy about declaring
that these events certainly took place, even though we can’t repeat them in
a laboratory.

“But when people say, ‘But that can’t have happened because we
know that that sort of thing doesn’t actually happen,’ they are appealing
to a would-be scientific principle of history, namely, the principle of analogy.
The problem with analogy is that it never quite gets you far enough. History is
full of unlikely things that happened once and once only, with the result that the
analogies are often at best partial. In any case, if someone declares that certain
kinds of events ‘don’t normally happen’ that merely invites the
retort, ‘Who says?’

“So how does the historian work when the evidence points toward things that
we do not normally expect? … Sooner or later questions of worldview begin
to loom in the background, and the question of what kinds of material the historian
will allow onstage is inevitably affected by the worldview in which he or she lives.”1

The Gospel you are concerned about us making a laughing stock of is built on a creation
foundation. It is impossible to understand what Jesus did for us accurately without
understanding what got us in the situation where we needed a Savior to begin with.

In short, despite all the real historical information that is out there to support
the resurrection, Jesus warned us “ … If they do not listen to Moses
and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead”
(Luke 16:31). By the way, when Jesus was referring to Moses,
He was referring collectively to the first five books he is credited with writing,
and that includes Genesis, which Jesus accepted as authoritative.

Similarly to the other comments at the bottom of the article you mentioned, both
of the authors of this response can testify that they could not believe what God’s
Word said about Jesus before they accepted what it said about creation (“If
I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I
tell you heavenly things?” John 3:12). For example, see
creation.com/lita for Lita’s testimony.

The Gospel you are concerned about us making a laughing stock of is built on a creation
foundation. It is impossible to understand what Jesus did for us accurately without
understanding what got us in the situation where we needed a Savior to begin with.
And when Paul describes our relationship with Jesus, twice (Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15) he goes back to our relationship with
Adam as a contrast—and he sees Adam as a historical figure whose actions affected
the human race every bit as much as Jesus was a historical figure whose actions
affected us. This is not up for debate; the only question is whether you think he
was right or he was wrong.

Consider this:

If Genesis is not real literal history.

With a literal Adam and Eve.

And if sin and death did not literally enter the world through their actions.

Then we don’t literally need to be saved from anything.

And Jesus’ sacrifice is meaningless.

Please see how the New Testament authors overwhelmingly endorsed Genesis as real
literal history. Please take the time to read
The Use of Genesis in the New Testament. Were they wrong too? There are
‘Christian’ organizations who believe that God used evolution, like
Biologos, for
example. Although they call themselves Christian they obviously faced this dilemma
of Jesus and the New Testament authors believing in a literal Genesis. Their answer
is to suggest that when it came to science then Jesus and His collaborators were
wrong. So now believing in evolution and adding it to the Bible has not only undermined
Genesis and the Old Testament, but the New Testament is discredited too because
we can’t trust what those authors say either. While we don’t agree with
Biologos’ view, we think they are being consistent, unfortunately, because
secular science is their ultimate authority and not the Scriptures. That’s
ironic though, because everything we know about the Christian faith actually comes
from the Bible.

As for being a laughing stock in schools and universities, the Bible is clear that
if we present the Gospel faithfully, some will accept it with joy and some will
reject it with derision and disgust. If we do not see this response, then there
is a good chance that we are not really presenting the Gospel. And as for ‘students
interested in the Christian faith’, I think such a lukewarm inclination is
hardly worthy of recognition. It would be like a cancer sufferer ‘interested
in chemotherapy’ or a snake bite victim ‘interested in antivenin’.
We are all dying, we all are in desperate need of the same cure, and it does not
help anyone to water down the Gospel.

If you are willing to slack on creation because believing the Bible’s history
is a stumbling block to some, what would you do in a culture where the Cross is
very offensive? By acquiescing to a secular view of science (such a view is trying
to explain the world without God, so why would we hold strongly to its interpretations
of science anyway?), the very Gospel of Christ becomes diluted to the extent that
the truth is lost along the way. It’s almost a form of appeasement or conforming
to the world’s view, thinking that such a ‘reasonable’ approach
might encourage more to believe. And frankly,
appeasement rarely convinces anyone as to the validity of your position.
As, we’ve said, our many years of experience (and once again please note the
testimonies at the bottom) says that the truth matters. After all Jesus’ own
words said, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”
(John 8:32).

I say this not to suggest that you would downplay the Cross, but to encourage you
to think about where your logic naturally leads. Simply, most people consider the
Bible to be one book. So, it’s quite logical to ask from their perspective
that if the first part of it (Genesis) does not mean what it says, then where does
the truth begin?

Related Articles

Related Media

References

N.T. Wright. Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection,
and the Mission of the Church, HarperOne, New York, pp. 64–65, 2008.
Return to text.

Where are you while reading this article? In the privacy of your own home? The internet, and this site in particular, can be a powerful tool for reaching those who would never go to church. Keep the penetration going by supporting this outreach. Support this site